I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
Some forms of Christianity like Mormons believe the EVERYTHING in the Bible is the truth and each word is the absolute truth. I am a Catholic and I have a very open mind so science. The Bible is full of metaphors and not everything is straight forward. It can't be taken at face value, it requires thought. I don't believe that on the 3rd day God made the Sun or any of that. I do find truth in the big bang. But, how did that infinitely small, dense and hot speck get there?
I agree with what you say. I am also a Catholic. I don't totally believe in the Big Bang theory, but im open to it. I find science interesting and agree with the majority of what it says. The one i don't believe mainly in is evolution.
Evolution is not a part of science, even though many scientists and people like that happen to be scientists. It's sort of like a religion. Christianity is not a science, but it tells pretty much the same thing as Evolution. Different stories, same topic. Science and religion should not be made equal.
Evolution is a scientific theory - what part of that don't you understand? You're as bad as the halfwits that claim Atheists worship Charles Darwin. Bah, 'the creation story' is in no way comparable to a scientific theory, it doesn't give any in-depth explanation and the evidence for it is woefully lacking - in other words, to spare you time, We have the fossil record - we win.
tehpwner, I am extremely sorry (but not really) to inform you that this thread has been compromised by Atheists, including myself.
**** those atheists and...oh wait.
Yes, I do. I take most of it seriously and sometimes assume that things like this mean the same thing.
But you just said there are errors in the Bible.
What he was saying was that what I was saying was that though they seem to be saying to different things, they can still mean the same things, just one had a different perspective or a different knowledge than the other had.
And even though they have completely different stories you accept both as true?
Some forms of Christianity like Mormons believe the EVERYTHING in the Bible is the truth and each word is the absolute truth.
Joseph Smith thought most of the Bible was full of errors and according to the story the Book of Mormon provides the actual true story. So far as I can tell it's (Book of Mormon > Bible) for Mormons.
The Bible is full of metaphors and not everything is straight forward. It can't be taken at face value, it requires thought.
How do you tell what is metaphor and what is straight forward?
But, how did that infinitely small, dense and hot speck get there?
The Big Bang doesn't deal with that question. I can provide you with several hypotheses.
We can never have a Christian debate on this site without an atheist involved, can we? Sigh...
I don't think this is a place for one sided debates. Though given you feel that your side is under represented my guess is you likely think it is.
Evolution is not a part of science, even though many scientists and people like that happen to be scientists.
Evolution is a scientific theory and a scientific fact, so yes it is.
Science deals with what is and also explains things that are, not about what was.
Ever hear of forensics? Paleontology? Archeology? Are you an idiot by birth or practice?
It's like saying a lion and a tiger are the same, "'Cause they look alike!"
Or because they share many of the same features, a spine, talons, and all those other characteristics of being a feline... It is like saying "Oh, no! Don't call those elements 'metals', just because they act like each other!"
but try comparing religions like Islam and Christianity and Evolution and see that all of them try to explain the beginning, all of them try to explain how we got here, and all of them describe who we are (to some extent).
So because the fiction covers more than fact, you should believe the fiction? So lets say you are living around the time that the Roswell incident happens. Aria 51 and all that. Since you do not have a satisfactory information with your current knowledge, does that mean you should just say "Well the alien theory explains what happens, why it happens, and in some detail, how it happens, so lets go with it"?
nd on the evidence part, I think you're becoming slightly ignorant.
I think you have become more ignorant than the rock in my backyard. At least rocks can give an insight into history, which you seem to not be able to comprehend.
Read this article. I know it's long, but I think you can handle it if you've been reading this entire thread.
A christian blog. Are you trying to kill us? No thanks, your ignorance is enough for right now.
Science deals with what is and also explains things that are, not about what was.
Actually science deals with the natural world as a whole. (I really got to get around to finishing that thread)
but try comparing religions like Islam and Christianity and Evolution and see that all of them try to explain the beginning, all of them try to explain how we got here, and all of them describe who we are (to some extent).
Evolution makes no such claims of how life began. I suppose you could say in a way it covers how we got here. I doesn't cover who we are so much as what we are.
And on the evidence part, I think you're becoming slightly ignorant. Read this article.
Don't make me break out the links you clearly never bother to read or listen to.
Look, religions are based on faith, having little to no credible evidence to back up any claims they make. Scientific theories and laws are based on cold, hard fact - they are provable/demonstrable. We have proof of Evolution, it is NOT a religion, it requires no faith.
I know, i thought i'd check up on here beeing as i havent been on for a few months. I like how my meer mention of evolution sparked a debate on it, however short it went > tricky little me :P
not to get off topic, but i feel i havent explained why. Mainly, Darwin observed microevolution when studying the finches. He then used his observation of microevolution and said that marcoevolution occured. If marcoevolution were true, we would find fossils to be slowly changing over time, but there are large gaps in fossil records between species that are believed to evolutions of the others. Due to that gap, marcoevolution can't have happened...... etc. etc.
Both, actually. I try to keep practicing my natural causes-facepalming-phrases.
...What?
That is smarter than assuming that aliens do exist. We (I mean, as in us, not the government) don't know that aliens exist, do we? Did I catch you right?
No, not at all, if I catch you correctly. What I am saying is, that with your "logic", when the event occurred at Roswell, you would have to believe that aliens had landed, rather than using a more logical solution like "A human vehicle crashed" or even simply "I don't know what happened".
You've always killed me because I wouldn't give you a 'scientists answer'.
I don't want a "Scientist's answer", I want a scientific answer.
This guy is a professor in PHYSICS!!!
Wow physics! That gives him absolutely no credibility in the subject of biology, paleontology, archeology, or even theology!!1!!. Why is it that physicist seem to think that they are the master of all science? If he was trying to disprove the theory of gravity, then his physics degree would be worth something, but not in the field of biology, where I assume he is attempting to talk about.
That's probably pretty bad, isn't it?
If he talks about physics, it gives him some credibility. Otherwise, he doesn't have any more credibility than a professor in math, technology, or even just a plumber. Or any other guy you meet on the street.
Anyhoo, he said that it is probably that the atmosphere or the flood could make it seem that the earth is really old. I will point out a few things:
No, no it couldn't...
...Some have pointed out that if the ratio was different when the earth was created six thousand years ago, either because the atmosphere was very different (perhaps because of a canopy of water) or the incidence of cosmic rays was different, then carbon dating results could be skewed. ...
Bull****. A canopy of water? How would that be possible? Just a huge wave of water, larger than the earth, orbiting around a volcanic earth? Earth was created millions of years ago, not that bull**** number. The atmosphere was, of course, much different when the earth was created, but that is pretty much irrelevant. And what are cosmic rays anyway?
So now something has to be wrong with an independent dating method.
This is wrong right here.
Maybe the flood had something to do with it. And note there is now another level of �conspiracy� here: not only must the correct assumption be whatever it has to be to restore a young earth, but what ever skewed the assumption for uranium/thorium dating insidiously left it in agreement with Carbon dating. ...
Bull****, based off a bull**** claim based on a bull**** story. This doesn't diverse anything else but the word bull****.
Are you saying that you like me?!?!?!???? D
I am saying you already broke my stupidity metor, why would I go to a bull**** link?
That's what I meant - all three religions deal with the real earth.
You only named two religions. As pointed out evolution is not a religion.
Nope. I didn't. You know why? They probly all said that Christianity doesn't have any evidence and left it at that. You can't prove that there is no evidence. Besides, it's a religion.
"You can't prove that there is no evidence." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Macroevelution is microevelution happening many times... Mage, do you have a video or something to clarify terms like normal?
You can't prove that turtles always will have four legs and one head in this current age (<- so Evolution does not count). There have been a bunch (okay, a few) of two headed turtles in the news lately.
Because having more legs would be ineffective, having two heads is ineffective (As we know from the two headed turtles, it decreases the chances for survival rather than increasing it), and a turtle having less legs is ineffective. A turtle with any of those traits dies and doesn't pass on it's genes. A better show of evolution would be taking the large turtle fossils and comparing them to it's small turtle relatives that you find today.
Are you saying that the US never tested flying vehicles before telling it to the public?
No. What I am saying is that just because you don't know it is a stealth plane, does not mean you can say "It was an alien!!1!shift1" as you seem to think you can.
Have you read Genesis 1? It talks about making the sky and the ground, water from water. Yeah.
Your being irrelevant again, I am asking for science. You already owe me a new bull**** meter, now bring in the facts. There is no water canopy ever enveloping earth. The earth is millions of years old.
Ouch. I made you angry. Basically, if you don't want to read my links or sources, don't post links or sources yourself. You'd waste both of our time.
I like it when you post links, but not to bozo the clown. You have to bring a legitimate, relevant, source who has some authority of what he is talking about.
So, basically, everyone who doesn't believe in Evolution won't give a scientific answer.
That is pretty much the case, for some reason everyone with a shred of logic seems to "believe" in evolution. I want a scientific answer to why they think evolution is wrong. And not any of this mental gymnastics and bull**** that you seem to think is a scientific answer.
Yeah. Most Christians I know say that they believe in Evolution. It's because there's proof. That is, for Microevolution.
And microevelution is macroevelution, on a larger scale. What are you not getting?
I think a bunch of peoples missed this.
It wasn't really worthy of finding anyway.
I still haven't thought this through yet... Great. Just at the point I need my brain to work.
Than you wouldn't be a creationist any more.
Evolution, shouldn't your amazing work have dealt with this by now?
It has. Any questions?
If marcoevolution were true, we would find fossils to be slowly changing over time, but there are large gaps in fossil records between species that are believed to evolutions of the others
There isn't any significant gaps for most species. Problem solved.
